Robert Skidelsky, Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University and a fellow of the British Academy in history and economics, is a member of the British House of Lords. The author of a three-volume biography of John Maynard Keynes, he began his political career in the Labour party, became the Conservative Party’s spokesman for Treasury affairs in the House of Lords, and was eventually forced out of the Conservative Party for his opposition to NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999.

Robert Skidelsky asks if the press is „too free?“ It is not about too much freedom but the abuse and exploitation of freedom of expression by rogue press and media. Tabloids in the UK are notorious for their despicable practices of infringing on people’s rights and privacy. Rupert Murdoch’s media empire has been involved in many controversies in its history. His journalists ignore facts, while focusing on divisive, false and biased reporting. He turned a blind eye to phone hacking, police bribery and the use of illegal methods in their pursuit of sensationalist stories. The raison d’être of a free press is to keep an eye on the government and hold it accountable for actions that may harm the country. The Fourth Estate, together with “the rule of law, enforced by an independent judiciary, and competitive elections held at regular intervals” are part of the checks-and-balances mechanism that ensures good and transparent governance. Yet anti-establishment activists resent the monopoly of state power and spread conspiracy theories, that aim to undermine their government. In the US, backed by Trump, they seek to erode public trust in institutions. While at times we need the press to defend us against “an over-mighty state,” we also need the state to “protect us from abuses of media power.” In a democracy, press and media outlets do not have the monopoly of news and information. In the UK the media landscape is marked by an oligopoly with four owners controlling more than 80% of the media outlets. Murdoch and Jonathan Harmsworth, aka Lord Rothermere own over 50% of online and print news. And their reckless tabloids – The Sun and The Daily Mail – are known for unethical journalism. The author says “efforts to bind the British press to a standard of ‘decent’ journalism have been tried – and failed – repeatedly,” especially after “egregious abuse” was exposed. There have been six commissions of inquiry in the UK since 1945,” with each recommending how to tackle the malignancy and “to protect privacy.” Yet each time “the government has backed down,” because politicians woo the media and fear being targets of their wrath. Tabloid journalists even snoop through trash to dig for dirt on politicians and celebrities, which they use for damaging stories. In 2011, a rigorous public inquiry led by Lord Justice Brian Leveson investigated the culture and behaviour of the British tabloids that included phone hacking – even members of the royal family – police bribery, and other illegal activities. In 2012 the findings of the first part of the inquiry was published, criticising the tabloids’ “reckless disregard for accuracy,” and “lack of respect for individual privacy.” The scandal led to the closure of Murdoch’s News of the World after 168 years in business, and the jailing of four journalists. Leveson called for a media watchdog to regulate the press. Recently, Theresa May’s Culture Secretary, Matt Hancock, announced that the government is bringing the Leveson Inquiry to an end. The "part two" of the inquiry was due to examine relations between journalists and the police. But Hancock said the "world had changed" and the press had cleaned up its act. Yet defenders of free speech say they can not stand by as May and the press barons try to scupper Leveson. The Independent Press Standards Organization (IPSO), set up by the industry is “accountable to no one but itself,” and it also goes soft on hate speech. The Labour shadow cabinet condemned the decision, calling it a "bitter blow to the victims of press intrusion". The author says that the government overruled Leveson’s opinion that “part two” of the inquiry was needed, did not come as a surprise, because politicians fear the “uniquely vicious” media outlets in Britain. Tabloids do not strike “the right balance between the public’s need to know and individuals’ right to privacy,” because they abuse the freedom of expression, turning their media into celebrity gossip, scandal machine, which is a multibillion dollar industry.

The Chinese do a better job of handling this issue, despite the nonsense we read in our media. They manage to filter out much of the harmful nonsense that tends to distort competitive media environments while retaining almost everything useful.

The proof of this pudding is that the Chinese government press retains the trust of 80% of the people (who are, remember, smarter, better educated and more widely traveled than us and who have access to CNN, the BBC, etc) while our media is lucky to crack 20% on a good day.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.